ProPhotoRGB to sRGB? Colo(u)r Issues

Hi All
I am using Windows VistaHome Premium 32bit with an Intel QuadQ6600 @2.4GHz and 3Gb Ram (Not great I know!)
I use LR2.6 and PSCS4...and a Spyder3 Elite to calibrate my monitor and calibrate on a weekly basis.
I import images into LR, process them whilst working in the ProPhoto color space and then use 'Edit in Photoshop' to transfer the image into PS for further work...
When the image moves from LR to PS it renders identically and there are no issues with color at all.
After I have processed in PS I go to Edit/Convert to Profile and convert to sRGB (IEC61966-2.1) in order to upload images to the web...
All looks well until I go to File/Save for Web & Devices which defaults to the Preview - Monitor Color and I get huge color disparity which is apparent across all pics regardless of subject/lighting or initial saturation. If I switch the Preview to Windows (No Color Management) then I get the image as it should be..????
I am convinced that I have something set incorrectly but for the life of me can't find the offending item...It was suggested on another posting that I should try resetting PS by holding down Shift/Ctrl/Alt when I start PS which I have done but this makes no difference.
If I can supply any further information or if my ignorance is obviously solved I would be extremely grateful for any help...!!!
Many, many thanks!

Hi J Maloney
Thanks for the response...
However, in going to 'Edit/Convert to Profile...' am I not already embedding the sRGB profile...?
I don't understand why after saving the image via 'Save for Web and Devices..' and I view it in Windows Photo Gallery then the color renders correctly?
But if I upload to the web then the color is more saturated than the original file??? (and blues especially are changed)
I have attached an example of what I mean..
Attached is an image again containing three versions of an image...
On the right is the version as it appears in LR/PS...ie as I want it to.
However, after converting to sRGB and trying to 'save for web and devices' if I leave the central window on 'Optimized' the image displays as per that on the right...ie correctly...
But if I flick the tab that says 'Original' as I have in this example it shows the image much bluer (and not a nice shade of blue either... )
And then if I click Preview in the 'Save for Web and Devices' I get the web version on the left which is the same as the 'Original' tab in the central window...
So the top and bottom is that the versions I think I am working with in LR/PS appear not to be the correct rendering...however, the situation is not remedied by simply turning off the screen calibration so there is obviously something else amiss somewhere???
Cheers

Similar Messages

Changing color profile in Lightroom 5 Soft Proofing from ProPhotoRGB to sRGB is not showing any changes, changes in Photoshop CC are dramatic

I am working with the color profile ProPhoto RGB in both Lightroom 5 and Photoshop CC. In preparing for my first Blurb book I have tried to generate pictures in sRGB in Lightroom, using the Soft Proofing feature, but there are no changes at all. Then I transfer the same pictures into Photoshop, change the color profiles and the results are dramatically different.
What can I do to achieve the same results in Lightroom

With an average monitor what you see on-screen is already soft proofed to sRGB (or something very close to it), because that's all the monitor is capable of displaying anyway. So soft proofing to sRGB won't tell you anything. You won't see any difference.
In Photoshop it sounds as if you assign profiles. That's not the way to do it. If you convert correctly you won't see any difference. Same principle as above: there may be clipping in the process, but what you see on screen is already clipped, so no visual on-screen difference.
With a wide gamut monitor soft proofing becomes slightly more useful. But still you won't see any changes occurring outside Adobe RGB. You'll get a better idea by keeping an eye on the histogram. Ideally, all three channels should taper gently off towards the endpoints. If any one or two channels are backed solidly up against the endpoint, on either side, that's gamut clipping.
If Blurb gave you a real profile, one that reflected their actual printing process, you could soft proof to that. But apparently they don't.

Why can't I include a color profile when exporting to PDF?

I've a basic RGB illustrator file - no embedded or linked images, just flat colors and gradients.
I'm working in sRGB space and this is reported correctly in the info field at the lower left of the editing window.
Some issues:
1. When I look at this file in Bridge it's listed as 'untagged'. However if I re-open it in illustrator it's reported to be sRGB as expected.
What's broken here?
...and of more immediate concern:
2. Despite requesting 'Include All Profiles' on the output page of the PDF save dialog I cannot get a PDF exported that includes the sRGB profile.
Same issues in both CS6 and CC - Windows 7, 64.
Thoughts, comments or suggestions welcomed....
Thanks

Your .pdf is fine, if you open the .pdf in illustrator, adn hten do edit >> assign profile, this radio biutton will bo on what the profile. Also in the bottom left of illustrator you can see what color profile your document is saved with, btuy turning that on.
Hold down option adn you will get other fun easter egg options
Bridge only seems to show profiles for certain bitmapped formats, except .psb format.

Raw Photos Become Red Jpegs in LR3

Hello: I am having trouble when I use Lightroom 3 and I try to export my raw photos as jpegs. I require the Jpegs so I may send them on the web to either friends, or, to a company like istock. When I view the jpegs, they are often too red in color (this is seen in landscapes but is especially noticed in peoples skin tone...which often makes them look sunburnt or unrealistic) and they do not match my raw photos (often these are processed in CS5 and I view all photos on my Hp LP2475w monitor). Note that both LR and CS5 have been updated to the most current versions. I also calibrate my monitor with a Spyder 3. Naturally, I have tried to individually correct this color shift for each photo, but it can be a most laborious chore and it never looks quite right. Do you have any suggestions on how to correct this? Many Thanks...

Same problem here. I do not understand what one means by exporting with ICC... jpeg are always exported using sRGB...it is the default LR. On a different note I CANNOT export with resolution less than 80 even when the slider is at 30... (the 87 in Picasa properties.)
see 4 images at https://picasaweb.google.com/101433723404021878177/Test_LR_Reds?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgC OqwntDz7IW2SA&feat=directlink
The first and third and fourth are different attempts in LR 3.6 all transferred to jpeg as sRGB... the second one, with a better exif, is from Capture One. This is the color as taken -- the LR is simply too red. It looks like LR is NOT
a) getting the jpeg compression as required and
b) not rendering the local ICC (ProPhotoRGB) into sRGB... as found when loading the jpeg into PS5...
That seems to be either a user error... but I cannot figureout how to fix it.... or a possible bug...

Elements 7... printing via online photo service

I'm not sure if this is a hardware or software issue, but I decided to start here.
I have a Core 2 duo processor (2.67Mgz), a nVidia 7950GT video card, Vista home premium 32 bit (fully updated), and about 3.3 gig of useable ram. I have a Samsumg SyncMaster 2693HM monitor and an HP Photosmart 7180 multifunction printer. I use a Nikon D90 in sRGB mode.
My issue is that when I upload pictures to a local regional pharmacy's third party photo printing service, they come out darker, with less vivid colors than when I print them on my printer.
When I bought Photoshop/Premiere Elements 7 last summer I decided to callibrate my monitor. I used the software that came with the monitor: Natural Color Pro-Color management system. It was just a manaual system, leading through several screens to adjust brightness, contrast etc. It's done by sight, so I assume the results are far from optimal. Ultimately, I want to get something like Syder Pro, but for now I would like some input.
When I start the Photoshop Elements editor I get this error message: The monitor profile "Samsung-Natural Color Pro 1.0 appears to be defective. Please retiurn your monitor callibration software. There are two dialog boxes underneath.........."ignore profile" or "use anyway." I'm not sure which choice I choose to go past.
I'm not sure if any of this information directly relates to printing pictures. I've not tried submit the pictures to another online photo finisher like Costco. I live in a small town and don't get over to Costco that often.
Based on the information I've provided, does anyone have any idea why the pictures would be dark and less vivid? They look good on screen.
Thanks for your help.

This might be helpful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzozX9kyCPc
http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/1_set_up_PSE_for_printing.htm
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Rnws
-garry

Color spaces in Lightroom and Photoshop

I read that Lightroom uses the large ProPhoto color Space and then again, that it's gamma curve ist close to sRGB. So what is my color space when working in Lightroom? ProPhoto, or sRGb, or something else?
And what kind of a color management workflow between Photoshop and Lightroom do you advocate? Using ProphotoRGB or sRGB as color work space in Photoshop? I used to work in AdobeRGB in Photoshop. Has this to be changed to gain maximum color consistency?
Thanks again for any help!
Johann M Ginther

Hey Claude,
if it did not have an attached profile it is almost definitely in sRGB or, more rarely, Apple RGB. Lightroom always assumes sRGB for untagged files which is typically a safe bet. Photoshop generally uses the working space for untagged images. Since you had adobeRGB there, you should get a more saturated image in photoshop then in Lightroom. The same data is simply interpreted in a different color space leading to different colors. This has nothing to do with the monitor profile therefore and my initial hunch was wrong. So for untagged images in photoshop, you should usually assign sRGB to them instead of working space.
>As for calibration hardware we do use them here so I will use it but since the Mac was brand new out the box I assumed that it was ok...
Unfortunately, in general the canned calibration is not very good on Macs. I find very large differences between the shipped profile and a profile generated by a calibrator. Also, Apple ships profiles that set your display's gamma to 1.8 instead of the standard 2.2. This leads to many images in webbrowsers being too low contrast. Even Apple suggests recalibrating your screen at 2.2 if you do digital photography work (it's in their Aperture help files). In this case though the difference between Lightroom and Photoshop had nothing to do with the monitor profile but was related to photoshop interpreting untagged files in its working space instead of the more likely sRGB space.

Color calibration issues - blue tint w/ sRGB

Need some help getting this issue resolved & wondering if there is a problem with my LCD.
I do a lot of web and video work and recently moved from a 17" Powerbook G4 to a 17" MacBook Pro. Both used with a 20" Apple Cinema display. The color temperature (tint) between the Powerbook and the new MacBook Pro are drastically different - especially when using sRGB calibration which is recommended by Adobe for this type of work. The cinema display seems correct and closely matches my Powerbook when using sRGB, but the Macbook Pro is very blue. The Macbook Pro displays more warm grays vs. the cinema display when using the default calibration settings.
Using sRGB for both displays:
http://idisk.mac.com/edgedesign-Public/Calibration/photo_sRBG.jpg
Using default calibration for both displays:
http://idisk.mac.com/edgedesign-Public/Calibration/photo_default.jpg
*Notice the 20" cinema hardly changes in either of these shots which make me think there's a problem with the MacBook Pro display.
- Are all the new MacBook Pros like this?
- Why so different than the Powerbook display and Cinema displays?
- Any calibration suggestions for Adobe CS3 and screen work?

Brief intro before I pontificate: I have a degree in imaging and used to be one of the guys you talked to at Eastman Kodak about monitor color calibration (before Kodak drove me crazy).
A few points:
First, sRGB is a needlessly small gamut color space invented by Microsoft. In the professional imaging field it is looked at with great disdain because it is imposing a needless crushing of your monitor's color profile. I've talked to one of the color experts at Adobe and he completely agrees. I don't know who at Adobe is recommending sRGB, but they are W R O N G. I personally call sRGB 'StupidRGB' in order to remind myself exactly what it is worth.
Second, the field of color calibration, color matching and color correction is complicated and requires considerable understanding to perform correctly. There are entire books on the subject, well worth reading. You can even take classes on the subject, such as at Rochester Institute of Technology (plugging my Alma matter). If you have shopped around for color calibration devices you will find they are incredibly expensive, and there is a reason for that.
Third, LCD screens generally SUCK for color matching. Here are a few reasons why:
(A) The viewing angle of most LCD screens is so small that if you tilt your head up, down, right or left you end up with a shift in color balance and contrast. Result: no way can you accurately color match. This is most certainly the case with ALL MacBooks, MacBook Pros and iMacs. The Cinema displays are vastly better. You can check this out yourself at your local Apple Store.
(B) In case you had not heard, none of the MacBook or MacBook Pro laptops are capable of showing all colors to which the human eye is sensitive. They don't do 'millions of colors' despite advertising you have read. They do about 260,000 colors and dither the rest. Dithering does NOT create colors that are not there. It just fakes them. The result again is that it is impossible to use these LCDs for accurate color matching. I have no knowledge about whether this color problem is the case with iMacs, but refer to the paragraph above regarding their viewing angle problem.
(C) The color gamut on even the very best LCD display is at the mercy of the fluorescent light bulbs inside the displays. The massive problem with fluorescent lights is that they do not have a continuous color spectrum. What you get are specific wavelength peaks with complete dropouts of other colors. Ye old CRTs with electron guns and glowing phosphors were/are not perfect either, but they were/are MUCH better at representing the full spectrum of light. Their gamut is much larger and more accurate than any LCD display. CRTs remain THE professional display for color calibration and color matching, even today.
I could rant on, but I think you get the message: Color matching on LCDs is a lousy idea, and on MacBooks and MacBook Pros it is essentially an impossible idea. The colors you need are not there on the screen. What you see is not what you get in terms of color. Give up.
That having been said, you can optimize your results for guestimation purposes. The very first thing I do with ANY display, including on Mac laptops, is go into the 'Displays' preference pane, hit the 'Color' tab and 'Calibrate...' the display. You MUST use 'Expert Mode'. Don't bother with mickey mouse mode. Fiddling with the settings will drive you nuts at first. But practice makes perfect. As long as you are not color blind you WILL get the hang of it, even if you don't understand what it is doing. Don't get psyched out. It works rather well.
When you get to 'Gamma' (you can look these terms up on Wikipedia) you want to use the same Gamma number as the other monitor you will be using for viewing. 1.8 is fine for Macs. Beats me why the 'PC' standard is 2.2. It is essentially a harsher contrast, but try it and use it if you like it, on BOTH monitors. Do NOT use 'native gamma' as it is rare that two displays have identical native gammas.
Next up is your 'white point'. Again, you want both your displays to have the same white point. D50 is the standard for viewing images in daylight. D65 is a bluer 'white point'. 9300 is the bluest of all. These numbers represent 'color temperature' as it is called. The sun has a color temperature hovering around 5000º Kelvin, thus D50 where D = Display. D65 = 6500º Kelvin, etc. Again, there is lots to read about in this field. Do NOT use 'native white point' on your displays if you are color matching because again, they won't be the same on each display.
When you get to the point of naming your color calibration profile you MUST include in the name the gamma number you used and the white point number you used. You will want to know, believe me. Here is why: You are going to want to make further color calibration profiles for different situations either now or in the future. Here's one example:
Lighting environment: Are you working on your MacBook Pro in the dark? Are the walls in the room a neutral color? Or are the walls colored? What kind of light is being used in the room? Fluorescent? Incandescent? Daylight? Details in the lighting environment in which you are working will affect how you perceive color on your display! You may want a morning color profile, an afternoon sun profile, and a night profile. If you have windows near you, these different times of day will affect the light in your work area and how you perceive color on your display. Again, go find a good book if you really want to understand this stuff.
A good basic calibration for plain old every day work, useless for color matching but nice to look at: I go through the calibration process for my lighting environment then use a gamma of 1.8 and I check off 'Use native white point'. Why? LCDs look their best at their native white point. You get good contrast with optimum color. Try it, you'll like it.
:-Derek

Aperture srgb profile issues

Hi!
I've a really bad issue with the Aperture sRGB export profile.
Tell me if there's a fix before I switch to Lightroom: when I export an image (working on a 16Bit TIFF) with strong red colors from Aperture to a .jpg file with sRGB profile, my "red" colors turn to a pale orange, messing up my whole balance. Meanwhile, if I do the same thing on , let say, DxO Optics Pro, or Photoshop, and I export THE SAME IMAGE with the SAME jpg quality and resolution, the REDS remain unaltered.
This thing happened with A LOT of my photos and now I did this export test with different software and the result has been shocking.
What's wrong with the sRGB Aperture export profile?!
Please help or let me know if it is bugged and I cannot rely on something with unpredictable or wrong results.
Thanks

All sRGB profiles are generic. In fact, all ICC profiles are platform independent. What would be different between the two are the monitors themselves and/or the monitor profiles.

LR4.1RC Exporting sRGB Issue

Hi, when I export in Window 7 with LR4.1RC, it doesnt seem to be attaching the Color Representation: sRGB when I open the properties of the file and look at the details. So when I preview in windows viewer or any other program but LR or PS it is not rendering with my applied actions. If I open the image in PS CS5 and choose edit>assign profile and then choose sRGB and save and close then it will finally have the Color Represention: sRGB, I have never had this issue until upgrading. Anyone have a clue as to what is going on? See below the "Color represention" should say "sRGB" but it is blank even though I exported in LR with sRGB selected
Thank you,
Sean

What the Windows Properties dialog shows you is the Color Space Exif tag. The only two values allowed in the EXIF color space field are (1) sRGB and (2) unspecified. This basically means that there is no way to tell what color space (ICC profile) to use if the color space is not sRGB.
LR always embeds a profile (but does not set the Color Space tag), which is more relevant than the color space tag (which might be of limitted use if no profile is included).
See also here:http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/understanding-embedded-image-info.html
Beat

Convert to web/sRGB issues

Hi Guys,
I am having a hard time understanding what is happening in Photoshop when saving files for the web.
My print ready images are in the Adobe RGB colour space. If I convert these to sRGB (edit - convert to profile) and then upload them, I get what appears to be fairly consistent colour across browsers (both colour managed and unmanaged).
However, if I use the save for web function and enable 'convert to sRGB' then there seems to be a large saturation increase in the preview compared to the original file. This isn't a problem as long I choose to embed the colour profile, but If I un-tick this and simply have it set to 'convert to sRGB' without any other options selected (i.e. embed colour profile un-ticked) then my final file ends up being 'untagged' and has the same over saturated colours as the preview. So to me this would suggest that I'm not actually converting to the sRGB colour space, but simply some weird photoshop guestimate.
So my question is, what exactly is happening here? And is there any reason why I should use the 'save as for web' feature when I can simply convert to sRGB and save as a jpeg manually thus what appears to be producing the most accurate colour across browsers!?
Thanks for your help in advance!

Hi,
If you check on "convert to sRGB" in save for web, but unclick "Embed Profile" the document's color numbers will be converted to sRGB and the document will be stripped of any embedded profile. It's possible that colors can appear different in both managed and non managed applications for two possible reasons:
1. For non managed applications, the colors in this untagged document will be directly interpreted through the monitor profile since the non managed application doesn't know that it should interpret the color numbers as though they're coming from sRGB.
2. For managed applications, if the working space is set to something other than sRGB, it will interpret the color numbers in the untagged document as though they were coming from the working space instead of sRGB.
Hope this helps.

CS6 "Save for Web" "Convert to sRGB" Issues

Hello,
I'm aiming to take RAW photo files, edit them in a wide color space, and when posting them to the web, save them as sRGB.
My workspace is as follows:
I open RAW files in Photoshop via ACR as 16-bit ProPhoto smart objects.
When I finish editing them, I use "Save for Web" with the "Convert to sRGB" and "Embed Color Profile" boxes checked.
Photoshop and Bridge tell me the profile in photos saved as such is sRGB as expected. When I upload to a site like flickr, however, the metadata says the photo is still in ProPhoto. See an example here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nrbelex/7950202448/meta/in/photostream
If I use "Convert to Profile" and change it to sRGB, then upload to flickr, the metadata says the photo is in sRGB, as it should be.
What am I missing here?
Thanks!

Without using Flickr, I'm not seeing any problem with any of the color-managed software I have here.
The ProPhoto test file I prepared, when Save For Web is used, is saved with sRGB numbers and (since I checked the box) has the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 profile embedded in it.
Photoshop re-opens the file and correctly judges that it has the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 profile.
A search through the binary data from the file Saved For Web using a text editor turns up a number of references to sRGB IEC61966-2.1, but none to ProPhoto RGB.
Your first image above, however, has BOTH references to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 and ProPhoto RGB, the latter appearing in a string of text data that looks like:
<rdf:Description
rdf:about=""
xmlns:xmp="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:aux="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/aux/"
xmlns:photoshop="http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/"
xmlns:xmpMM="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/mm/"
xmlns:stEvt="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceEvent#"
xmlns:stRef="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceRef#"
xmp:Rating="3"
xmp:ModifyDate="2012-09-07T12:40:05-05:00"
xmp:CreateDate="2012-09-06T19:18:56"
xmp:MetadataDate="2012-09-07T12:40:05-05:00"
xmp:CreatorTool="Adobe Photoshop CS6 Windows"
dc:format="image/jpeg"
aux:SerialNumber="022031001932"
aux:LensInfo="70/1 200/1 0/0 0/0"
aux:Lens="EF70-200mm f/2.8L USM"
aux:LensID="165"
aux:LensSerialNumber="0000000000"
aux:ImageNumber="0"
aux:ApproximateFocusDistance="4294967295/1"
aux:FlashCompensation="0/1"
aux:Firmware="1.1.3"
photoshop:DateCreated="2012-09-06T19:18:56.056"
photoshop:ColorMode="3"
photoshop:ICCProfile="ProPhoto RGB"
xmpMM:DocumentID="xmp.did:0F84D078F91311E19565E271D59D6831"
xmpMM:OriginalDocumentID="98EDC08C95F6E809F2FB9CADB1F3442D"
xmpMM:InstanceID="xmp.iid:0F84D077F91311E19565E271D59D6831">
-Noel

Images edited in proPhotoRGB now have wonky colors...

Somehow my default in ACR changed without me noticing from sRGB to proPhotoRGB and now the images from 2 of my sessions have really wonly colors when saved on my PC... I did some reasearch and I guess I was supposed to convert back to sRGB, except I had no idea this was going on so now I am in a real pickle. Does anyone know if there is a fix for this that does not involve re-editing a number of images? I am really hopin there is a way to resque these files!

OK... so my images were just saved as jpegs in full resolution. I was just getting ready to burn a CD of the session for the client and also post the images in an online gallery on my website. What happened is I created a pin on Pinterest with an image that was unrelated to the images from the session I am talking about and I noticed the colors were really dingy and completely off. That was my clue something was wrong. The I went bck to my session images and burged a couple on a CD and viewed them on a different computer using just the default windown viewer and they looked the same way. I had to research to find out what was wrong and finally realized that it was an issue of my settings in ACR. Somehow they had changed from sRGB to proPhotoRGB, which I don't typically use for editing. Since I wasn't aware this was happening I just saved the files as jpegs (full res) on my computer. I didn't do any resizing or anything else to them. And I still have some of the files saved with layers if that can be of any help. But I also have some that I wasn't planning on correcting in any way and those images I flattened and saved as jpegs ready for the client's CD.
I also tried opening one of the images back in Photoshop and chaning the profile back to sRGB, then saving it but it didn't make any difference.
I hope this gives some more insignt into what I did... please let me know if there is a piece of information you still need... I am desperately trying to avoid hours of re-editing!
Thanks so much for your help!!

Frustrating Camera RAW colour issue

Hi guys,
I have a really frustrating issue when using CameraRAW in PS. Basically when I switch on the filter CameraRAW it will mess with the colours. I haven't changed anything settings in CameraRAW. I've attached an image to illustrate. Please help. This issue is driving me crazy!
Edit: The most obvious issue is the with red Google+ icon becoming somewhat desaturated.
Cheers

I am not seeing any change, except in the histogram, when I turn the CR-filter-component eye on and off.
In more detail:
I have an sRGB-sized gamut monitor but use a ProPhotoRGB workspace in PS. I copy-pasted a crop of your left, more saturated screenshot into PS and assigned it an sRGB profile. Your PNG screenshot didn't contain any color profile so I just guessed it was sRGB. Your monitor could be wide-gamut in which case I should have assigned AdobeRGB to be approximately correct. Because my monitor is approximately sRGB and the image was assigned a profile of sRGB, despite the workspace being a larger ProPhotoRGB, no pixels are outside the monitor gamut, because both the image and the monitor are sRGB.
On the image I'd just pasted into a new PS document, I created a smart object then added the CR-filter and clicked Ok without changing anything and I don't see any desaturation or other visual difference when I turn the smart-filter CR eye on and off; however, I do see the histogram change. CR uses an internal ProPhotoRGB-wide colorspace and I think this is why I see the histogram change so much when I turned the CR-filter component eye on and off--PS is showing me the histogram as if the image is in ProPhotoRGB instead of sRGB.
I then converted the sRGB image to ProPhotoRGB, and repeated the same SO-CR-filter, eye-on-off, and the online version still doesn't change, but this time the histogram doesn't, much, eitehr, because the image colorspace and the CR-workingspace are similar.
Since your image is changing, I'm suspicious that there are some CR sliders set to non-zero, somewhere, or your monitor profile is very out-of-whack, so PS isn't actually displaying the proper colors.
The desaturation is about what would be expected if you were viewing an AdobeRGB image using an sRGB profile. Without knowing what monitor you have and whether your monitor profile is properly created, it's hard to guess what is wrong for you.
If you want to upload your PSD, to maybe www.dropbox.com, and post a public download link to it, here, someone might be able to test what happens for them. I don't have a ColorEfex filter on my side so I'm not sure if that would affect things. Uploading a version of the image without the ColorEfex smart filter might be good.

Light room 5.0 multiple pages printing issue

I'm facing strange issue with multiple pages print from Light Room to Pixma Pro-10 using Canon IJ XPS driver. (OS Win 7)
Every time when I want to print multiple pages, second and all others are shifted to green. It's also seen on Preview page - see below
View: original size
It's a print of two exactly same images (created by virtual copy in Lr) only difference is a printing order (seen on bottom left) if I swap the printing order results is the same - second print is shifted.
Even if I make 8 copies of the same image and print it - 4 per page (2x2 pattern) all images on the first page is ok and all on second page are shifted.
I can'not imagine where should be a problem. Image is in sRGB color space. Color management managed by printer. Printing from other applications (tested with Irfan and ACDSee) seems to be OK.
It's not a startup problem - I already print numerous images without issue - its should be faulty settings somewhere - but I'm not aware of any color related settings change.
Disabling preview didn't help - second and next images are shifted
Color management in LightRoom is set to Managed by printer - which gives excellent results (for the first image)
Any other settings produces much worse images.

Some thoughts that may or may not be of any help:
1) To me the "green" image looks desaturated like a ProPhotoRGB image that is being printed with an sRGB profile. All images in LR have internal color numbers that have ProPhotoRGB-sized colorspace but a different gamma, irrespective of what the source image had for its colorspace, so the way you have things set, I would assume that LR is sending raw ProPhotoRGB-like data and the printer is doing a conversion, but erroneously only for the first page, somehow, whereas any other program that prints is sending sRGB data and it works every time.
2) What color management settings do you have set on the printer? Are they some sort of Automatic color or have you set a specific color profile to match the paper?
3) What happens if you have LR manage the color with a paper-specific profile set in LR and set the printer not to manage color? Does the first page print differently, then? Create smallish-sized prints on each page so as not to waste ink. This is the way I'd have LR and the printer setup, with LR doing the color-management and the printer not. You haven't said how you have your printer settings, so something that could be happening is LR is expecting the printer to do the color-management and the printer is expecting LR to be doing it, so its not working right.
4) A first page printing differently than the others can be a setting in the printer, to handle a cover-page differently than the rest, because it has different paper. I have no experience with your printer, but you might look to see if there is such a setting.
5) You haven’t said if you’re using any LR printing layout preset or not. If so then try printing without having selected one or select a completely different, standard one, and see if the problem clears up.
6) LR will remember the last printer and printer-driver settings that you used, so if the driver is updated but LR is remembering settings for the previous driver, then things can get messed up. You can try uninstalling and reinstalling the printer drive. You can try installing another copy of the printer driver using a different name for the printer, that way LR’s saved settings shouldn’t be associated with that new name.
7) As a last resort, and only after reviewing various preferences you have set in LR, you can try to reset LR’s preferences, in case something is corrupted and causing problems. The way to reset the preferences is to exit LR and rename the preferences file to something without an .agprefs extension, then restart LR. If renaming doesn’t seem to be working, then move the .agprefs file to your desktop, temporarily. You can delete the preferences file, but it’s safer to rename it or move it, in case it doesn’t fix the problem, then you can rename or move it back and have all your old preferences back, instead of recreating all the non-default settings. The Preferences file location along with many other things, is documented here:
http://members.lightroomqueen.com/Knowledgebase/Article/View/1373/205/lightroom-5-default- locations
Finally, is there a reason you’re using LR 5.0 rather than one of the newer versions, in case 5.0 has a bug that has been fixed in subsequent versions?
Various LR versions can be follow by clicking on the Windows/Mac link under Lightroom down near the bottom of the center column of the Adobe Updates page: http://www.adobe.com/downloads/updates

Do I need to run DNS on a colo server being accessed remotely via VPN?

My Mac Mini Server is located in a colo site. We generally use it for Web, email and a couple of application-specific services. It has a dedicated IP address. We have a separate DNS service we use to point to the domains on the server located remotely from the server. Forward and reverse lookups work fine from the server, even though the local DNS service is turned off.
However, we now have a couple of things we want to access remotely on the server via VPN (for example, some files via AFP). The firewall blocks remote AFP requests (using the built-in firewall, not a separate box). We can connect via VPN without problems. However, AFP does not work. If I allow AFP in the firewall and try to connect, no problems at all.
Since the Mini is located by itself and will never likely have anything connected to a "local network" (never running DHCP, etc.), there generally doesn't seem to be a need to run DNS on the server.
I suspect the problem is that when you VPN into the server you are on its "local network", whatever that means, so the DNS does not resolve since the local DNS service is not running. However, I am not positive of this.
Must we run local DNS? Does it have to mirror the remote DNS that we currently reference? Can we somehow "reference" the local DNS from VPN clients trying to access local services?
I hope this question makes some sense.

Bear with me please....
The Mac Mini is in a data center on a shelf, getting a direct connection to the Internet via ethernet with a fixed IP address (under the covers, I suspect that the data center is using some sort of router or switch, but I am not paying for a hardware firewall or other gateway). There is no local network for the Mini. It is not running DHCP, not handing out NAT addresses, etc. DNS is currently off. Rather than using the local DNS, the Mini is resolving its DNS needs with a DNS server located at another site, over the Internet. This seems to work fine (i.e., changeip confirms it is working and services seem to work).
I am currently using the software firewall built into SLS.
I want to turn on VPN so that remotely located computers can access services on the Mini without having to make the services visible through the firewall.
I am able to connect devices via VPN with little difficulty (iPhones, Macs, etc.). However, when I try to access services (let's use AFP as an example), I cannot access them UNLESS they are allowed through the firewall. This tells me that I am not seeing the services through the VPN, but rather through the Internet directly.
What I meant by "local network" is that the VPN allocates local IP addresses when devices log into the VPN service (10.0.x.x). There is no DHCP allocating these addresses, just VPN.
My question is: why can I not see the services on the Mini blocked by the firewall when successfully logged into VPN on the server? Isn't the whole point of the VPN to gain access to services behind the firewall?
I am guessing (with no particular information to support my thesis) that somehow without DNS running on the Mini, VPN clients are unable to access services on the Mini. I do not know for sure, however, if this is the problem. If it IS a problem, then the question is whether I should completely copy the DNS entries from the remote DNS server to the Mini and start the service. Will that solve the issue? Create conflicts with the DNS (since it is now located on both a remote service and on the Mini)? It certainly will create a maintenance headache since now I will have to maintain the DNS in both places.
I am hesitant to migrate all of my DNS services to the Mini (because I will also have to go to the domain registrars to change where they point, etc.) to eliminate the remote one. And I am not sure it will solve this problem anyway.
Sorry for all of the typing!

ProPhotoRGB to sRGB? Colo(u)r Issues

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for